Monique Guay

[Rivière-du-Nord Media, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of welcoming journalists from LE NORD, the Journal de Prévost, Le Sentier and CIME-FM, the radio station of the Laurentians, who are proud representatives of the media in my riding, Rivière-du-Nord.

This day is part of a long tradition initiated by my constituency office to introduce the people we deal with on a daily basis, as elected representatives, to another aspect of the job of member of Parliament, and at the same time to thank them for the mutual trust we have enjoyed throughout our years of cooperation.

The journalists in my region, who enjoy a special vantage point for observing what we do every day, play an important role in our democracy and are committed to delivering clear information that the public can use to make informed choices.

Today I would like to recognize the work they do, their intellectual discipline, their ethics and their determination to preserve their freedom of expression.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois join with me in giving them a very warm welcome to Parliament Hill, and hope that they enjoy their time with us.

[The Environment, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the instructions he has given to the Minister of the Environment are modelled directly after George Bush's position?

Would it not be fair to say that the real objective of the Minister of the Environment in Nairobi is to help sabotage Kyoto by getting participants to adopt the American position, which is to give more time to major polluters so they can continue to pollute as they see fit?

[The Environment, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the real purpose of the Minister of the Environment's trip to Nairobi was revealed yesterday by the Prime Minister when he stated, and I quote:

The minister is attending this conference in order to participate in the development of an effective international protocol, which will include the major emitters of greenhouse gases.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, by giving these instructions to the Minister of the Environment, he is giving her the mandate of purely and simply sabotaging the Kyoto protocol?

[The Environment, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer to my question. I will therefore repeat the question, in the hope that someone is listening.

The Minister of the Environment is trying to create a diversion by claiming that the funding for Quebec is part of the discussions on the fiscal imbalance. Quebec wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and achieve the Kyoto protocol targets. Quebec has the will, Quebec has a plan. All Quebec lacks is the $328 million that was promised. What is the minister waiting for to pay up?

[The Environment, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the federal finance minister did an about-face yesterday and confirmed that he would pay the $538 million the previous government had promised to Ontario to reduce the number of coal-fired power plants.

Yet the Minister of the Environment has formally refused to pay Quebec the $328 million it needs to achieve the Kyoto protocol targets.

How can the government explain that it is not paying anything to Quebec, which has a plan to reduce greenhouse gases, when Ontario, which has no plan, will be receiving $538 million? How can the government explain this double standard?

[The Environment, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about these historic measures. We are going to have to wait until 2050. This is unbelievable.

This bill shows once again the huge gap between this government's approach to the environment and that of the Quebec government. Minister Béchard said he was surprised and disappointed, and he feels that this plan is totally unacceptable.

How can the government explain that, on the one hand, it rewards polluters, namely major oil companies, by granting them significant tax breaks, while, on the other hand, it penalizes Quebec, which wants to go ahead with the Kyoto protocol and which needs $328 million to do so?

[The Environment, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced yesterday confirms, without any doubt, that the government has decided to kill the Kyoto protocol once and for all. In so doing, it shows its true colours by favouring its friends, the oil companies, which will be allowed to continue polluting as they wish, while penalizing Quebec, which wants to achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives, by refusing to give our province the $328 million of new money that it needs.

How can a government that claims to care about the environment justify such an attitude, considering that its plan is nothing more than the perfect gift to its friends, the oil companies?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in committee when we asked Commissioner Zaccardelli whether he informed the ministers, he made reference to dates, suggesting that information sessions were held with the ministers. We have a serious problem: the RCMP refuses to provide these dates, and all the former ministers maintain these meetings never took place. Conclusion: Zaccardelli lied to the committee.

What is the minister waiting for to fire him?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are new revelations about Commissioner Zaccardelli's management of the Maher Arar case. After acknowledging that the evidence against Maher Arar was incorrect and that he was convinced that Mr. Arar was innocent, Mr. Zaccardelli did nothing and left Mr. Arar to rot in a Syrian prison. In committee, he suggested that he informed his political superiors, but all the former ministers are saying the opposite.

Does the Minister of Public Safety not agree, in light of these disturbing facts, that it is time to call for Commissioner Zaccardelli's resignation?

[Justice, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, examples of bias are growing: the Black and Blue Festival which had its grants cut, the Minister of Justice's bill, the appointment of Ms. Findlay and chief of staff Reid, the end of the court challenges program.

Are all these decisions not indicative of a shift to the right by this government, which is finally showing its true colours?